Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/08/28 17:26:46
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What is actually striking is the Dunning-Krueger Effect when it comes to the discussion of firearms, with those who know the least making the most noise;
I own guns.
20 gauge and .243 for hunting, .22 LR for the range. Yup, small frame.
I'm strongly in favor of regulations. Even if it means I have to do some paperwork, and go once in a while to the doctor to prove I've not become clinically blind or flying rodent gak insane.
We may have different ideas of what "constitutional rights" means. I'm okay with that. We're from different countries, different cultures. And that's part of what's makes Dakka a great place.
According to me, a constitutional right means "no regulations, no exceptions". They should apply to everybody, everywhere and should be protected at all costs. No matter where, what, how, why or who. No "ifs", no "buts". No exception.
No matter if you're a criminal, a terrorist, a clinically insane person.
No matter if you're in a plane. Or next to the POTUS.
Should free speech be a constitutional right ? Definitely.
Should the right to bear arms a constitutional right ? Well... Not totally sure about that one.
2016/08/28 17:47:52
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Litcheur wrote: I own guns.
20 gauge and .243 for hunting, .22 LR for the range. Yup, small frame.
I'm strongly in favor of regulations. Even if it means I have to do some paperwork, and go once in a while to the doctor to prove I've not become clinically blind or flying rodent gak insane.
We may have different ideas of what "constitutional rights" means. I'm okay with that. We're from different countries, different cultures. And that's part of what's makes Dakka a great place.
According to me, a constitutional right means "no regulations, no exceptions". They should apply to everybody, everywhere and should be protected at all costs. No matter where, what, how, why or who. No "ifs", no "buts". No exception.
No matter if you're a criminal, a terrorist, a clinically insane person.
No matter if you're in a plane. Or next to the POTUS.
Should free speech be a constitutional right ? Definitely.
Should the right to bear arms a constitutional right ? Well... Not totally sure about that one.
Yet for owning guns you still do not know about the legal, historical, and cultural norms around the ownership of firearms in the United States.
We share the same understanding of what a Constitutional right is. And in relation to the Second Amendment it explicitly states "shall not be infringed". In the United States we have already decided that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. In addition most individual state constitutions also recognize the right to keep and bear arms; for example the Indiana Constitution states “[t]he people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”. So we have decided that it is a Constitutional right, and should be afforded all the appropriate protections..
Spoiler:
Before anyone decides to get on the usual talking points about the Second Amendment;
1. "well regulated" when the Constitution meant "in good working order" i.e. with sufficient arms and ammunition.
2. "militia" does not exclusively mean National Guard. The National Guard is an example of an organized militia. US law considers anyone over 18 who is, or intends to become, a US citizen a member of the militia (what is called a "disorganized militia")
3. The Second Amendment and other Constitutional rights are not frozen in time. The Second Amendment is not limited to muskets. The First Amendment does not limit the press to 18th century printing presses
Kilkrazy wrote: By your reckoning the right wasn't massively restricted since only 36/9,000 people were denied it (and only on certain university campuses.)
Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Why would you want to pass a law just to restrict somebody's constitutional rights to begin with? Particularly if it wasn't a problem to begin with.
There wasn't a law, it was a rule of the university and a new law has been imposed by the state to overrule the university's rules.
The students obviously feel it is a problem or why would they be protesting.
I seem to remember a group of college students in the 1960's protesting people's rights on a state college campus in Alabama.
If I remember correctly the majority opposed the Constitutional rights of the minority there too. I don't hear anyone claiming the majority was correct in that case.
2016/08/28 21:28:29
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Kilkrazy wrote: Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Kilkrazy wrote: There wasn't a law, it was a rule of the university and a new law has been imposed by the state to overrule the university's rules.
The students obviously feel it is a problem or why would they be protesting.
1. You called it a law initially, and others opted to use your terminology so as not to get bogged down in semantic arguments
2. You just answered your own initial question on what the point of the law was
2016/08/28 21:29:50
Subject: Re:Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
The students obviously feel it is a problem or why would they be protesting.
Well sure, some people sure felt it was a problem no one but <generic bad guy here> had a gun on hand when virginia tech had its shooting and decided something needed to change. This is why we have campus carry now, except that the effort involved more than prancing around in front of a camera wearing sex toys.
There wasn't a law, it was a rule of the university and a new law has been imposed by the state to overrule the university's rules.
Which is not always a bad thing. In this case, I don't have any reason to think it will prompt an increase in criminal behavior on campus, and I certainly have no personal problem with more vetted people around who are armed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/28 21:31:20
2016/08/28 23:46:35
Subject: Re:Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
I definitely would say the argument that a right is predicated upon a substantial enough percentage of the population exercising, or having access to it, is sort of a bad argument. It doesn't matter how few transgender people's rights are being infringed, or how many CCW holders, or how few families the queen is making lodge Royal marines. Enough with the third amendment violations, already!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/28 23:48:31
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/08/28 23:51:12
Subject: Re:Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Ouze wrote: I definitely would say the argument that a right is predicated upon a substantial enough percentage of the population exercising, or having access to it, is sort of a bad argument. It doesn't matter how few transgender people's rights are being infringed, or how many CCW holders, or how few families the queen is making lodge Royal marines. Enough with the third amendment violations, already!
So you're saying I won't lose my freedom of speech when I shut my mouth and inhale? Wow. Wish I knew that sooner. I've been screaming for 29 years straight!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/28 23:51:21
Ouze wrote: I definitely would say the argument that a right is predicated upon a substantial enough percentage of the population exercising, or having access to it, is sort of a bad argument. It doesn't matter how few transgender people's rights are being infringed, or how many CCW holders, or how few families the queen is making lodge Royal marines. Enough with the third amendment violations, already!
So you're saying I won't lose my freedom of speech when I shut my mouth and inhale? Wow. Wish I knew that sooner. I've been screaming for 29 years straight!
Drink some tea and honey to soothe your vocal cords
2016/08/29 04:05:01
Subject: Re:Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
CptJake wrote: Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.
Discussing issues entirely in terms of the constitution is perhaps the silliest thing of all.
"We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of that" is a completely dysfunctional approach to discussing politics and individual rights.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/08/29 04:24:12
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Discussing issues entirely in terms of the constitution is perhaps the silliest thing of all.
"We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of that" is a completely dysfunctional approach to discussing politics and individual rights.
I agree.
Fortunately, that's not the argument being made. "We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of it until such time as what we wrote is amended, a process explicitly spelled out in the document itself and one that has been used multiple times over the country's history to change things that the bulk of society felt were outdated," is much more accurate.
The Second Amendment would go away tomorrow if there was support for amending it out of existence. There isn't; it's not even close. It hasn't been anywhere near close in recent memory.
2016/08/29 06:36:33
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Frazzled wrote: Thats my point. They have the right to protest. The manner they are protesting in is infantile and beneath a top ten/top 20 university.
44th. But who's counting?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The Second Amendment would go away tomorrow if there was support for amending it out of existence. There isn't; it's not even close. It hasn't been anywhere near close in recent memory.
I agree, fortunately that's not the argument being made.
You are talking about the question 'can we stop people buying guns'. Your answer to that question is accurate and well formed. The only question is why you're answering that question, when no-one asked it.
Rather, tneva82 made the argument that restrictions on dildos but not on guns was legal but stupid. CptJake responded that it wasn't stupid but was instead what the constitution said. This was, is and will forever be a terrible response that makes no sense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/29 06:48:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/08/29 06:52:24
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
sebster wrote: CptJake responded that it wasn't stupid but was instead what the constitution said. This was, is and will forever be a terrible response that makes no sense.
You understand that the Constitution is the final authority on what's legal and what's not in the United States, right? Determining whether something is legal based on what the Constitution says is pretty much the job description of the Supreme Court. Rather than being a terrible response and failing to make sense, there is quite literally no better reference material for arguments about legality.
2016/08/29 07:25:27
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Seaward wrote: You understand that the Constitution is the final authority on what's legal and what's not in the United States, right? Determining whether something is legal based on what the Constitution says is pretty much the job description of the Supreme Court. Rather than being a terrible response and failing to make sense, there is quite literally no better reference material for arguments about legality.
Is there something in the constitution against reading?
Here is the actual statement that kicked this off;
tneva82 wrote: Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right.
If you still can't get it - there is no argument being made about what the law is and what the law is not. There is an argument being made that the current state of affairs is a very stupid state of affairs. In response, first CaptJake and and now you have responded by pointing that it is the constitution and therefore it is the law.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/08/29 07:27:05
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
You understand that the Constitution is the final authority on what's legal and what's not in the United States, right?
Thing is, that's the only argument that keeps going from gun support people.
You understand that the Constitution isn't untouchable, right? It was made a long time ago, according to a certain situation at that time that isn't the same right now. It was written by humans, not God. Therefore, it is perfectible and must be reviewed if needed.
The absurdity of dildos being restricted but not guns is still there. It is legal, indeed. But stopping just at this is losing the point of the protest.
It is not stupid to protest against a stupid fact of reality, that was made by humans and thus can be undone by humans. It's not a fatality.
2016/08/29 07:29:05
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
SilverMK2 wrote: Where would the constitution stand on a gun that fired dildos, and was shaped like a willy itself?
What about a vibrator that was also a gun? Like an umbrella sword, but less lame and a lot more likely to win someone a Darwin Award?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/08/29 07:32:01
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Somehow it all leads back to Sean Connery in a nappy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Armour peircing for combatting chastity belts. Sabotted for your pleasure.
Finally this thread is getting somewhere awesome.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 07:47:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/08/29 08:04:50
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Sarouan wrote: Thing is, that's the only argument that keeps going from gun support people.
Hardly.
You understand that the Constitution isn't untouchable, right?
I do. That's why I said, ""We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of it until such time as what we wrote is amended, a process explicitly spelled out in the document itself and one that has been used multiple times over the country's history to change things that the bulk of society felt were outdated," is much more accurate."
It was made a long time ago, according to a certain situation at that time that isn't the same right now.
True. Back then, for example, I could have owned a warship if I had the means and the desire. Can't do that now. Firearms are far, far more restricted today than they were at the time the amendment was written.
The absurdity of dildos being restricted but not guns is still there.
Guns aren't restricted? Good to know. I ought to tell my sixteen year-old neighbor with a felony conviction that he actually can legally get a gun, due to the lack of restrictions.
It is legal, indeed. But stopping just at this is losing the point of the protest.
The "point of the protest" is that progressive college kids are scared of firearms. There's nothing new or surprising in that. And there are many, many reasons why we don't leave public policy decisions solely in the hands of undergraduates - our fondness for the Second Amendment and our desire to avoid fifty year convictions for microaggressions being a few examples among many.
2016/08/29 08:13:10
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Seaward wrote: True. Back then, for example, I could have owned a warship if I had the means and the desire. Can't do that now. Firearms are far, far more restricted today than they were at the time the amendment was written.
On the other hand firearms are also much more capable than they were at the time the amendment was written. There is much greater potential for criminal use, and much greater potential for accidental deaths (especially when you get into the idea of people owning a modern warship). Similarly, civilians armed with their personal weapons had a much greater chance of a successful revolution than they do now, and so the idea of guaranteeing the right to own weapons as protection against the government made at least some sense. Now the "protect yourself against the government" argument is pure fantasy material and the pro-gun side has invented a whole new concept of owning carrying concealed handguns for protection against criminals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Litcheur wrote: Should free speech be a constitutional right ? Definitely.
Absolutely not, not by your definition of "no regulations ever". It is absolute insanity to suggest that fraud, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, making death threats, etc, should be protected as constitutional rights.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 08:14:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/29 08:32:36
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Peregrine wrote: On the other hand firearms are also much more capable than they were at the time the amendment was written. There is much greater potential for criminal use, and much greater potential for accidental deaths (especially when you get into the idea of people owning a modern warship). Similarly, civilians armed with their personal weapons had a much greater chance of a successful revolution than they do now, and so the idea of guaranteeing the right to own weapons as protection against the government made at least some sense. Now the "protect yourself against the government" argument is pure fantasy material and the pro-gun side has invented a whole new concept of owning carrying concealed handguns for protection against criminals.
I disagree. We've fought two insurgency wars in the past decade and a half that have shown it's not fantasy. Toss into the mix the fact that the military is not going to follow the government like a monolith depending on who's in power at the time of this purely hypothetical revolution, and you've got a lot of uncertainty.
The concept of self-defense was hardly "invented" in the past fifty years, either. If anything, we've narrowed the definition rather than expanded it. We're talking about guys who used to kill each other over points of honor; you really think they didn't believe using a gun to defend yourself was a right?
2016/08/29 08:53:39
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Seaward wrote: I disagree. We've fought two insurgency wars in the past decade and a half that have shown it's not fantasy.
We've fought two insurgency wars where inflicting excessive collateral damage in killing the enemy is unacceptable, political and popular support for the war are limited at best, abandoning an unpopular war is an appealing possibility, and nobody seems to know which side of the whole mess is actually the enemy. That's not at all the same as fighting an oppressive tyrant with no ability or desire to retreat, few or no limits on how many people they're willing to kill*, widespread popular support**, and the ability to identify enemies of the state as targets. A hypothetical domestic revolution doesn't have the ability to be annoying for a few years until the tyrant runs out of patience and leaves. The tyrant is going to fight to the bitter end with everything they have, and they're not going to care how many people they have to kill to put down the insurgency. The two situations are simply not comparable, at all.
*Otherwise it's extremely unlikely that violent revolution is justified. Killing people because a peaceful and legally-elected government passes a law you don't like is murder, not a justifiable revolution. For revolution to be justified you're talking about the kind of oppressive tyranny where the secret police disappear people in the night, enemies of the state are publicly executed, etc.
**Remember, the tyrant got into power in the first place and didn't immediately get voted out by the majority. The most likely outcome is something like Nazi Germany where mass executions of "undesirables" are not only accepted by the population but cheered on by the adoring masses. Nuke a whole town because they tried to start a revolution? Excellent, those s needed killing.
Toss into the mix the fact that the military is not going to follow the government like a monolith depending on who's in power at the time of this purely hypothetical revolution, and you've got a lot of uncertainty.
Of course, but the military joining the fight makes the civilians with AR-15s irrelevant. The outcome of the revolution will be decided by which faction in the military wins the fight while all the out of shape 50 year olds who put "tactical" everything all over their man-dolls are told to stay out of the way. And in the unlikely event that the military wants new recruits they'll also have weapons to arm them.
The concept of self-defense was hardly "invented" in the past fifty years, either. If anything, we've narrowed the definition rather than expanded it. We're talking about guys who used to kill each other over points of honor; you really think they didn't believe using a gun to defend yourself was a right?
Of course they believed in self defense, but how many people in the late 1700s were advocating for concealed handguns as a means of self defense? How often was self defense against criminals cited as a reason for the second amendment? Moving from bulky single-shot pistols to modern revolvers and semi-automatics is a massive change in the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, and that ability much more relevant right (if you believe it is a right) to protect in 2016.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 08:58:43
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/29 09:46:50
Subject: Univerity of Texas Students and Professors Protest the New Concealed Carry Law in Unique Fashion
Seaward wrote: I disagree. We've fought two insurgency wars in the past decade and a half that have shown it's not fantasy.
We've fought two insurgency wars where inflicting excessive collateral damage in killing the enemy is unacceptable, political and popular support for the war are limited at best, abandoning an unpopular war is an appealing possibility, and nobody seems to know which side of the whole mess is actually the enemy. That's not at all the same as fighting an oppressive tyrant with no ability or desire to retreat, few or no limits on how many people they're willing to kill*, widespread popular support**, and the ability to identify enemies of the state as targets. A hypothetical domestic revolution doesn't have the ability to be annoying for a few years until the tyrant runs out of patience and leaves. The tyrant is going to fight to the bitter end with everything they have, and they're not going to care how many people they have to kill to put down the insurgency. The two situations are simply not comparable, at all.
*Otherwise it's extremely unlikely that violent revolution is justified. Killing people because a peaceful and legally-elected government passes a law you don't like is murder, not a justifiable revolution. For revolution to be justified you're talking about the kind of oppressive tyranny where the secret police disappear people in the night, enemies of the state are publicly executed, etc.
**Remember, the tyrant got into power in the first place and didn't immediately get voted out by the majority. The most likely outcome is something like Nazi Germany where mass executions of "undesirables" are not only accepted by the population but cheered on by the adoring masses. Nuke a whole town because they tried to start a revolution? Excellent, those s needed killing.
The United States has already faced a situation where one half of the country warred with the other half over disputes about a democratically-elected government, and both sides believed they were fighting on the side of justice and self-interest.
Of course, but the military joining the fight makes the civilians with AR-15s irrelevant. The outcome of the revolution will be decided by which faction in the military wins the fight while all the out of shape 50 year olds who put "tactical" everything all over their man-dolls are told to stay out of the way. And in the unlikely event that the military wants new recruits they'll also have weapons to arm them.
There, again, I strongly disagree, and I think you're significantly downplaying the amount of combat veterans in the country who are keenly interested in keeping up their Second Amendment rights out of the service.
Of course they believed in self defense, but how many people in the late 1700s were advocating for concealed handguns as a means of self defense?
I don't think where or how someone carried their pistol was even on their radar. The point you're missing is that it was self-evident for them that people were allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.
> Moving from bulky single-shot pistols to modern revolvers and semi-automatics is a massive change in the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, and that ability much more relevant right (if you believe it is a right) to protect in 2016.
It's a "massive change" in efficiency, not the concept. All that changes is that you have a much better chance of actually incapacitating someone today rather than putting a lead ball in them and waiting for them to slowly die from septicemia.
s needed killing.